govtrack.wordpress.com

Empowering "We the People"

The Worst Leftism of the 20th Century, the Big Lie that Hitler was on the right, and related.

THIS PAGE IS A WORK IN PROGRESS, OUR APOLOGIES IF IT’S A BIT QUIRKY AT THIS TIME
~
The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin’s Communism, yet still far to the left. The very word “Nazi” is a German abbreviation for “National Socialist” (Nationalsozialist) and the full name of Hitler’s political party (translated) was “The National Socialist German Workers’ Party” (In German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)
 
Hitler was a Leftist
 
 

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” –Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

[Below is the 25 of the NSDAP Program – This is basically the National Socialist German Workers Party Platform. It included measures that in effect would redistribute income and war profits, profit-sharing with large industries, nationalization of trusts, extensive development of old-age pension (just like FDRs Social Security Program), and free education. Clearly this demonstrates Hitler was indeed a left winger and here is startling proof.]

The 25 points of the NSDAP Program were composed by Adolf Hitler and Anton Drexler. They were publically presented on 24 February 1920 “to a crowd of almost two thousand and every single point was accepted amid jubilant approval.” (Mein Kampf, Volume II, Chapter I) Hitler explained their purpose in the fifth chapter of the second volume of Mein Kampf:

~

Crisis and Constitution: Hitler’s Rise to Power

January 30, 2013  by Anthony B. Bradley  ACTON Institute

On Jan. 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany. While he was being sworn in he said, “I will employ my strength for the welfare of the German people, protect the Constitution and laws of the German people, conscientiously discharge the duties imposed on me and conduct my affairs of office impartially and with justice to everyone.” Neither the German people, nor the rest of world, had any idea that this day was the beginning of an incremental concentration of power that would later lead to the death of millions of people and catalyze World War II. The lesson the world learned from Hitler concerning the dangers of unchecked power should never be forgotten.

In the week following his oath of office, Chancellor Hitler convinced German president Paul von Hindenburg to do two things: dissolve parliament and authorize the Minister of the Interior and the police to prohibit public meetings and publications that might be considered a danger to public safety. The conditions that made this kind of anti-democratic move possible were economic depression, political instability (including the threat of revolution), and a widespread desire to regain national dignity following the shame of defeat in World War I.

The Nazis played on these fears and desires. On the night of Feb. 27, 1933, the Reichstag building, where parliament met, was set on fire. Whether the action was undertaken at the behest of the Nazi Party or was an independent act remains debatable, but that Hitler capitalized on the panic that ensued is certain. The next day Hitler urged Hindenburg to respond by issuing a new law that suspended sections of the German Constitution that protected individual liberties. In this “Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and the State,” the German people were informed that “Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.” In a later section of the decree, Hitler laid the foundation for abolishing the country’s federalist system and centralizing power in Berlin:, “If in a state [regional government] the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.”

In March 1933, through various political maneuvers, Hitler successfully suppressed Communist, Socialist, and Catholic opposition to a proposed “Enabling Act,” which allowed the Cabinet to introduce legislation without first going through parliament, thus by-passing Constitutional review. The act would give the executive branch unprecedented power. Hitler’s regime designed the act as a temporary measure requiring reauthorization by the Reichstag every four years. Once the Nazis were the majority, reauthorization became perpetual. On March 23, 1933, the day votes were cast for the act, all of the Communist deputies and 26 Socialist deputies were missing because they had either been arrested or had fled the country, according to Lucy S. Dawidowicz in The War Against the Jews: 1933–1945. When the vote was taken, 441 deputies voted in favor of the Act and all 94 of the Social Democrats present voted against it. Hitler now had legal authority for dictatorship. Five days later, with the announcement of a plan to silence complaints about Germany by Jews abroad, Hitler began his long-term campaign against the Jews, which began with the boycott of German businesses and later escalated to the murder of an estimated six million Jews.

Hitler’s rise to power is a sobering story of how a crisis and calls for quick solutions can tempt citizens and leaders to subvert the rule of law and ignore a country’s constitutional safeguards. Adolf Hitler swore to protect Germany’s constitution, yet he pursued expanded “temporary” executive power that circumvented due process for the sake of the “safety” and “protection” of the people. Germany’s descent into totalitarianism is yet another example of how calls to concentrate decision-making in the executive branches, as we now see all over the world, too easily set the stage for political, social, and moral evil. On this dark anniversary, it would serve us well to remember that among the best protections citizens have against tyranny and oppression is insistence that all, including politicians, be held accountable to the same laws and that due process is always honored. These guarantees should be part of a system where decision-making is dispersed, not concentrated, because, as Lord Acton reminds us, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolutely power corrupts absolutely.”

You might also like…

Defending the Free Market

Socialism has been discredited. The totalitarian states of the twentieth century have collapsed. And we beneficiaries of the globalized world economy are grateful that we enjoy plentiful food, clothing, shelter—and cheap electronics. But can any moral person really be for capitalism? Consumerism is an appalling spectacle, with Americans glutting themselves on all kinds of excess, while people in the developing world starve. The rich seem to be hogging far more than their share of the world’s resources. Free markets may be efficient, but are they fair? Aren’t there some things—life-saving health care, for example—that we can’t afford to leave to the vicissitudes of the market? Now, in Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy, Father Robert Sirico—a Catholic priest, former leftist associate of Jane Fonda, and now a longtime champion of the free market—answers all these objections.

~

 

Letters They Wouldn’t Publish
Rescue was possible, FDR just failed
September 25, 2006

Letters to the Editor  The Forward  letters@forward.com

To the Editor:

Towards the end of his review of apologist Robert N. Rosen’s new book on President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s response to the Holocaust (Sept. 22), Gal Beckerman poses a series of important questions:

“What plans [for rescuing Jews from Hitler] … could have worked practically, with Germany in control of all of Europe until the summer of 1944? How many Jews could have been saved in the best of circumstances? And finally … wasn’t bringing the war to as quick an end as possible, committing to it all available resources and energies, the best that one could do?”

The answer is that while the American government could not have prevented the Holocaust, a timely and concerted rescue effort could done much to save Jewish lives, as rescue activists were insisting at the time.

In July 1943, the activists known as the Bergson Group sponsored an Emergency Conference to Save the Jewish People of Europe, held at the Commodore Hotel in New York City. It proposed practical steps that FDR and the Allies could have immediately adopted without harming the war effort, such as:

* temporary asylum for Jewish refugees in Allied and neutral countries (in addition, the U.S. had 190,000 unused quota places under which it could have admitted Jews);

* opening the gates of Palestine to Jewish immigration;

* using empty Allied supply ships to transport refugees when they returned to America after delivering supplies and troops to Europe;

* deterring would-be war criminals by announcing an ironclad Allied vow to punish all Nazis involved in war crimes (the scandalous State Department opposed doing so until it finally made this position public in early 1945).

* Most important, the conference called for the establishment of “an official [U.S. government] agency specifically charged with the task of saving the Jewish people of Europe.” (It was only six months later, under enormous political and public pressure, that FDR established the War Refugee Board, which ultimately played a key role in saving more than 200,000 lives.)

Thus it was clear, to all who had eyes to see, that much could and should have been done to rescue Jews, besides FDR’s clear commitment to winning the war. Had timely and concerted action been taken, hundreds of thousands of Jews probably could have been saved, according to Prof. David S. Wyman’s authoritative analysis in The Abandonment of the Jews.

The burning question Beckerman does not pose is: why was so little done so late? The answer to that question is that little was done to help Jewish refugees because saving them would have meant needing to admit large numbers of them to the United States, to British Mandatory Palestine, and to other places of potential refuge in Allied countries. And this the Roosevelt Administration and his allies were never willing to do.

Sincerely,

Benyamin “Buddy” Korn
Associate Director
The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies
Washington, D.C.

 ~

Letters They Wouldn’t Publish
FDR, the Warsaw Uprising, and the failure (refusal) to bomb Auschwitz  
August 1, 2004

Letters to the Editor  New York Times  letters@nytimes.com

Dear Editor;

Your July 31 feature recalled the Soviets’ refusal to aid the Polish uprising against the Nazis in Warsaw in August 1944, even though the Red Army was stationed right outside the city.

It should be noted, however, that the Americans and British did try to provide material help to the rebels. On September 18, for example, a fleet of 107 U.S. bombers dropped more than 1,200 containers of arms and supplies into Warsaw. Less than 300 of the containers reached the Polish fighters; the Germans confiscated the rest.

The Roosevelt administration’s internal assessment of the supply effort noted that it was undertaken even though the U.S. knew beforehand that “the Partisan fight was a losing one” and “large numbers of planes would be tied up for long periods of time and lost to the main strategic effort against Germany.”

Ironically, that very same summer, the Roosevelt administration rejected American Jewish requests to bomb the Auschwitz death camp in southwestern Poland; U.S. officials claimed such strikes were “impracticable” because they would require “considerable diversion” of planes that were needed for the war effort. The cruelest irony is that on August 20, U.S. planes were sent to bomb a different part of the Auschwitz complex–they dropped more than 1,300 bombs on German synthetic oil factories less than five miles from the gas chambers. But the mass murder machinery was left untouched.

Sincerely,

Dr. Rafael Medoff

~

New Documents Shed More Light On FDR’s Holocaust Failure
by Laurel Leff and Rafael Medoff

The release of previously unknown diaries written by U.S. diplomat James McDonald has attracted national media attention, in part because they refer to McDonald’s early warning, soon after Hitler rose to power in 1933, that the Fuhrer might be planning the mass murder of German Jews. But equally significant is that the diaries reinforce the fact that when it came to aiding Hitler’s Jewish victims, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was all talk and no action.

The New York Times reported last week that McDonald returned from a 1933 visit to Germany feeling extremely pessimistic about the fate of German Jewry, “a view he apparently shared with President Roosevelt, who seemed deeply concerned and said he wanted to find a way to send a warning message to the German people over the head of Hitler.”

Does that mean Roosevelt was indeed ready to help Germany’s Jews, contrary to what many historians have written?

Hardly. The historical record shows that despite FDR’s remark to McDonald, he never sent any such “warning” to the German people.

On June 16, 1933, Roosevelt met with his ambassador-designate to Berlin, William E. Dodd, Jr. to instruct him as to what positions he should take on various issues. Regarding the persecution of Germany’s Jews, Dodd’s published diary reports: “The President said, ‘The German authorities are treating the Jews shamefully and the Jews in this country are greatly excited. But this is also not a governmental affair. We can do nothing except for American citizens who happen to be made victims.” He said the U.S. should use only “unofficial and personal influence” on the Germans. The idea of a sending a deterrent warning to the German people was never mentioned.

On August 25, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt brought her friend Alice Hamilton, who had recently spent three months in Germany, to Hyde Park to give FDR a detailed eyewitness account of German brutality against the Jews. He still refused to publicly criticize Hitler.

James McDonald was not the only person to whom FDR offered empty promises on this issue. Judge Irving Lehman (brother of New York’s governor), together with longtime Roosevelt friend Henry Morgenthau Jr,. visited the White House on September 14, 1933, and asked the president to issue a statement about Germany’s Jews. Roosevelt said he preferred to make a statement about human rights abuses in Germany in general, without focusing on the Jews. But he did not do even that.

Throughout 1933, American Jewish Congress president Rabbi Stephen Wise repeatedly asked administration officials to urge FDR to publicly deplore Hitler’s treatment of the Jews. Those requests fell on deaf ears. In a private letter on October 15, an anguished Wise wrote that despite his many appeals, “We have had nothing but indifference and unconcern [from the White House] up to this time.”

If FDR had been sincere when he spoke to McDonald about sending a “warning” to the German people, there are many ways he could have done so. He could have imposed economic sanctions on Hitler. He could have opposed U.S. participation in the Berlin Olympics. He could have downgraded or suspended diplomatic relations. He did none of that.

At the very least, he could have raised the subject in his press conferences. FDR held 82 press conferences in 1933. The subject of the persecution of the Jews arose only once, and not because Roosevelt raised it. A reporter asked, “Have any organizations asked you to act in any way in connection with the reported persecution of the Jews over in Germany by the Hitler government?” The president replied: “I think a good many of these have come in. They were all sent over to the Secretary of State.”

It would be five years and another 348 presidential press conferences before anything about Jewish refugees would be mentioned again. Even then, when the subject came up, it didn’t go far. Typical was a reporter’s question, on September 2, 1938, as to whether the president had any comment on Italy’s order expelling 22,000 Jews. The president’s reply: “No.” During 998 press conferences over the course of his twelve years in office, FDR never sent that “warning” to the German people that he mentioned to James McDonald.

The McDonald diaries are a sad reminder of how an articulate president, whose expertise at communicating with the masses was demonstrated in such innovations as the fireside chat, fell silent when it came to the suffering of the Jews.

(April 2004)

~

Letters They Wouldn’t Publish
 
FDR & the Holocaust: New Evidence
April 23, 2004

Letters to the Editor
New York Times
letters @nytimes.com

Dear Editor:

Your April 23 edition reported that according to his newly released-diaries, U.S. diplomat James G. McDonald spoke with President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933 about Hitler’s persecution of German Jews, and Roosevelt “seemed deeply concerned and said he wanted to find a way to send a warning message to the German people over the head of Hitler.”

Yet he never sent such a warning.

On June 16, 1933, the ambassador-designate to Berlin, William E. Dodd, Jr. met with the president and discussed, among other things, the situation of Germany’s Jews. Dodd’s published diary reports: “The President said, ‘The German authorities are treating the Jews shamefully and the Jews in this country are greatly excited. But this is also not a governmental affair. We can do nothing except for American citizens who happen to be made victims.” Roosevelt said the U.S. should use only “unofficial and personal influence” on the Germans. The idea of a sending a deterrent warning to the German people was never mentioned.

Nor was James McDonald the only person to whom FDR offered empty promises on this issue. Judge Irving Lehman (brother of New York’s governor) and longtime Roosevelt friend Henry Morgenthau Jr. visited the White House on September 14, 1933, and asked the president to make a public statement about the plight of Germany’s Jews. Roosevelt replied that he preferred to make a statement about human rights abuses in Germany in general, without focusing on the Jews. But he did not do even that.

The issue was not whether or not FDR was privately “concerned,” but rather his actions in this regard. Sadly, he did not act.

Cordially,

Laurel Leff
Associate Professor of Journalism, Northeastern University

Rafael Medoff
Director, The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies

~

Sixty Years Ago This Week: FDR’s One Step Against the Holocaust
by Dr. Rafael Medoff

Sixty years ago this week, President Roosevelt took his only meaningful action against the Holocaust–the creation of the War Refugee Board, which saved some Jews from Hitler during the final months of the war. But even that late step came only after enormous public and Congressional pressure on Roosevelt, and a furious conflict within FDR’s own cabinet over the rescue issue–a conflict that revealed much about why the American government did so little to intervene against the Nazi genocide.

In late 1942, the Roosevelt administration publicly confirmed that Hitler had embarked on a campaign to murder all of Europe’s Jews, and that at least two million were already dead. But FDR was not prepared to go beyond a verbal denunciation of the genocide.

Roosevelt refused to seek liberalization of America’s popular immigration restrictions, which limited the number of foreigners who could enter to a maximum of about 153,000 from around the world each year. But if he had wanted to, FDR could have provided a haven to many refugees even within the existing immigration quotas, because they were almost always under-filled. The man Roosevelt hand-picked in 1940 to handle refugee matters, Breckinridge Long, instructed U.S. consular officials abroad to “postpone and postpone and postpone the granting of the visas.” During the period of the Nazi genocide, from late 1941 and until early 1945, only ten percent of the already-miniscule quotas for immigrants from Axis-controlled Europe were actually used. Almost 190,000 quota places were deliberately left unused.

It was not just that the president was unwilling to help the Jews. FDR’s State Department actively thwarted efforts to help them. In late 1943, senior aides to Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. discovered that State Department officials had been blocking transmission of Holocaust-related information to the United States, and had been intentionally obstructing opportunities to rescue Jews from Hitler. The bitter truth is that the State Department did not want them to be rescued, because that would increase pressure on the Allies to give them shelter.

On Christmas Day, 1943, Treasury staffer Josiah DuBois drew up a stinging 18-page report that he titled “Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews.” He and his colleagues presented the report to Morgenthau and urged him to go to the president.

Meanwhile, the rescue issue was reaching the boiling point on Capitol Hill and in the press. Throughout 1943, a Jewish activist committee known as the Bergson group had been waging a campaign of rallies, full-page newspaper ads, and lobbying Congress for U.S. rescue action. In November, Members of Congress introduced a Bergson-inspired resolution calling for creation of a U.S. government agency to rescue refugees. The resolution was quickly approved by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In the House of Representatives, it was the subject of hearings which exploded in public controversy when Breckinridge Long gave wildly misleading testimony about the number of refugees who had already been admitted into the country.

The embarrassing publicity from the hearings gave Treasury Secretary Morgenthau the leverage he needed with the president. On January 16, 1944, Morgenthau brought the “Acquiescence” report to FDR, determined to convince Roosevelt that “you have either got to move very fast, or the Congress of the United States will do it for you.” Ten months before election day, the last thing FDR wanted was a public scandal over the refugee issue. Within days, Roosevelt did what the Congressional resolution sought–he issued an executive order creating the War Refugee Board.

Although understaffed and underfinanced, the Board played a key role in the rescue of some 200,000 Jews and 20,000 non-Jews, in part by facilitating and financing the life-saving work of Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg in Budapest. Among the rescued were future U.S. Congressman Tom Lantos and his wife-to-be, Annette. The Board’s work demolished the Roosevelt administration’s longstanding claim that there was no way to rescue Jews except by winning the war.

So many more could have been saved if Roosevelt had extended some of his reputed humanitarianism to Europe’s Jews before most of them had been murdered by Hitler. He could have offered temporary shelter to refugees, just for the duration of the war. He could have pressed the British to open the gates of Mandatory Palestine. He could have established the War Refugee Board a year earlier. Note that the Roosevelt administration established a special government agency to rescue historic artwork and buildings in Europe in 1943; but it was not until 1944–sixty years ago this week–that FDR, under strong pressure, finally created a government agency to rescue human beings.

That one belated step could not change the bitter fact that in the end, as David S. Wyman wrote in his 1984 best-seller ‘The Abandonment of the Jews,’ “the era’s most prominent symbol of humanitarianism turned away from one of history’s most compelling moral challenges.”

(January 2004)

 ~

By: Dr. Rafael Medoff

Sidney Zion, the federal prosecutor-turned-journalist who passed away on August 2, was widely admired in the Jewish community because of the strongly pro-Israel articles he wrote as a columnist for New York’s daily newspapers, at a time when many other pundits were ganging up on the Jewish State.

But Zion also deserves to be remembered for another courageous stance he took–regarding President Franklin Roosevelt’s terrible response to the Holocaust….

It’s been said by more than a few that President Obama is like FDR on speed, and approaching a year and a half into his presidency, already having lost support among Jewish-Americans, and having worsened Israeli-American relations more and more with each passing month, he now does this! As for his comparisons to FDR, we know that it’s mostly because of Obama’s socialist new deal like policies, and mishandling of the economy, let’s hope thats where it stops.
~
 

By: Rafael Medoff and Benyamin Korn

Bad history, bad timing, ignorance, and being his leftist self.

The White House last week issued a statement strongly suggesting that America opened its doors to Jews fleeing the Holocaust. And it made the statement on the seventieth anniversary of the infamous “voyage of the damned,” when the United States turned away the S.S. St. Louis, a ship carrying more than 900 Jews seeking a haven from Hitler….

~

By Dr. Rafael Medoff

The recent Time magazine cover depicting Barack Obama as a Franklin D. Roosevelt look-alike dramatically illustrated the widespread expectation that the new president intends to govern in the spirit of FDR and the New Deal. This perception has been reinforced by an Obama spokesman’s confirmation that the president-elect is currently reading apologist Jonathan Alter’s book about Roosevelt’s first hundred days, as well as Jean Edward Smith’s biography, “FDR.”

Mr. Alter told reporters, “It’s just nice that we’re going to have a president that has a strong sense of history.” True enough, but one hopes the new president will be careful to separate the wheat from the chaff, because when it comes to the issue of FDR’s response to the Holocaust, Smith’s book is deeply flawed.

Smith, unlike some others, at least acknowledges that the U.S. failed to take significant measures to help the Jews in Europe–but he refuses to assign any of the responsibility to President Roosevelt. Again and again, he tries to find other parties to blame….

How Grace Coolidge Almost Saved Anne Frank

by Dr. Rafael Medoff and Cyndy Bittinger
(Dr. Medoff is director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies; Cyndy Bittinger is executive director of the Calvin Coolidge Memorial Foundation and biographer of Grace Coolidge.)

Newly-discovered letters written by Anne Frank’s father have revealed that the family sought permission to come to the United States in 1941, but were turned away. What makes the story even more tragic is that just a short time before, former First Lady Grace Coolidge and other humanitarians had campaigned to admit German Jewish refugee children like Anne to enter the country, but their pleas rejected.

The letters by Otto Frank shed new light on a painful period in American history, and at the same time open a new chapter the story of the little girl whose fate has come to symbolize the Holocaust, and whose diary is required reading for millions of American schoolchildren each year…

 ~

 

 U.S. Christians Who Rescued Jews from Hitler
–Until the State Department Stopped Them

~

THE NAZI-ISLAMIC AND LEFTIST ALLIANCES THEN THAT STILL PERSISTS TODAY.

DURING WWII, RADICAL ISLAMISTS AND MUSLIMS IN GENERAL, FROM VARYING COUNTRIES, WERE STAUNCH ALLIES OF THE NAZIS, AND THOUGH NOT YET AN ISLAMIC REPUBLIC, PERSIA (IRAN) WAS ONE OF THOSE PRO-NAZI. FAST FORWARD TO THE POST IRANIAN REVOLUTION IRAN OF TODAY, AND IT IS NEVER MORE APARENT. IRAN CARRIES ON IT’S OWN FORM OF NAZISM AND WHILE DENYING THE HOLOCAUST, OPENLY CALLS FOR ANOTHER. THOUGH THE LOUDEST OF THOSE THAT CALL FOR THE COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL AND ALL JEWS, IT IS NOT ALONE. OTHER FORMS  OF ISLAMIC NAZISM EXIST IN SUCH SIMILAR COUNTRIES AS SYRIA WHO PRACTICES BAATHISM LIKE DID IRAQ UNDER SADAMNED HUSSEIN, ALONG WITH HAMAS AND HEZZBOLAH IN LEBANAON AND PALESTINIAN TERRITORY, AND AS DOES COUNTRIES LIKE EGYPT WITH THEIR NATIONALISM, OR SAUDI WITH THEIR EXTREME THEOCRACY. IN ALL OF THESE CASES THERE IS ANOTHER IMPORTANT PARALLEL IN THAT LIKE NAZI GERMANY, THESE COUNTRIES ALL PRACTICE FORMS OF SOCIALISM AND MARXISM AS WELL.
~
Letters They Wouldn’t Publish
Iran and Germany
November 13, 2006

Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
letters@nytimes.com

Dear editor:

The free world “is facing a similar situation to Europe in the 1930s, when they watched the rearming of the Nazi regime,” according to Israeli parliament member Yuval Steinitz (front page news article, Nov. 13). “No one could predict the global catastrophe 10 years later, and Iran may be the same.”

Actually, the period between Germany’s rearmament under Hitler and the outbreak of World War Two was much less than 10 years. It was in March 1935 that Hitler announced military conscription, for the first time openly flouting the restrictions on militarization that had been imposed by the post-World War I Versailles Treaty. Germany’s development of a navy and air force, its military intervention in the Spanish civil war, and its occupation of the Rhineland all followed soon after, with no meaningful response by the international community. Having successfully tested the Free World’s willingness to resist, Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, launching the Second World War.

It took less than five years of German rearmament and international indifference to pave the way for world war. One wonders how much more time the West has to deal with Iran before the eruption of the “global catastrophe” that Mr. Steinitz forecasts.

Sincerely,

Rafael Medoff, Director
The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies
Washington, D.C.

~

Letters They Wouldn’t Publish

Jews In Iran
September 13, 2006

Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
letters@nytimes.com

Dear Editor:

Nicholas Kristof (Sept. 12) quotes former Pentagon official Dov Zakheim as claiming that “Iran doesn’t treat its 20,000 Jews as wretchedly as its rhetoric would suggest.”

Relativizing the persecution of minorities in this manner can distort the reality of their suffering and the oppressive nature of the regime. Hitler’s treatment of German Jews during the 1930s –prior to the Holocaust– may not have been as wretched as Nazi rhetoric threatened, but that was not evidence of Nazi moderation. Or, to cite an example of a cause that Mr. Kristof has so eloquently championed, the enslavement of Sudanese blacks by Arab militias in years past was not as wretched as the mass murder they have more recently experienced, but that is no reason to understate the severity of those earlier phases of persecution.

One should also be careful not to read too much into the fact that, as Mr. Kristof puts it, “Iran continues to be home to more Jews than any Middle Eastern country save Israel.” There are many factors affecting the rate of emigration, and even in Nazi Germany, prior to the Holocaust, not all Jews sought to leave. As for the Iranian Jewish community –down from 80,000 before the 1979 Khomeini revolution to 20,000 today– the U.S. government’s “International Religious Freedom Report” for 2005 found that the possibility of Iranian Jews emigrating was hampered by the fact that Jews “often are denied the multiple-exit permits normally issued to other citizens. With the exception of certain business travelers, the authorities require Jews to obtain clearance and pay additional fees before each trip abroad. The Government appears concerned about the emigration of Jewish citizens and permission generally is not granted for all members of a Jewish family to travel outside the country at the same time.”

Sincerely,

Rafael Medoff, Director
The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies
Washington, D.C

~

Letters They Wouldn’t Publish

January 20, 2007

Jimmy Carter’s Jewish Problem (which helps one understand how the anti-Semitic Islamic Revolution in Iran took place under his watch, that he bungled)

Letters to the Editor
Washington Post
letters@washpost.com

Dear editor:

Deborah Lipstadt (”Jimmy Carter’s Jewish Problem,” op-ed, Jan. 20) describes how former President Carter, in his new book and in his remarks about the book, “trivializes the murder of Israelis,” “minimizes the Holocaust,” and has employed “traditional anti-Semitic canards about Jewish control of the media” to explain his alleged inability to receive a fair hearing for his case against Israel.

Add one more item to the growing list of troubling statements and actions by Mr. Carter on Jewish matters. Neal Sher, former head of the Justice Department’s unit for pursuing Nazi war criminals, recently revealed that in 1987, Carter pressed him to go easy on an admitted Nazi SS veteran. Martin Bartesch, a Chicago resident, was awaiting deportation from the U.S. after admitting he had served in the SS at the notorious Mauthausen death camp. Justice Department officials had uncovered what Sher described as “iron-clad documentary evidence of his direct, hands-on role in the Nazi genocide,” evidence which was “made public and widely reported in the media.” To Sher’s amazement, Carter sent him a “personal, handwritten note … urging that ‘in cases such as this, special consideration can be given to the families for humanitarian reasons.’” (Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Dec. 26, 2006)

Cordially,

Rafael Medoff
Director
The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies
Washington, D.C.

~

The Grand Mufti Alliance and Arab Chemical Warfare Against Jews–in 1944
by Benyamin Korn

Iraq and Syria possess missiles which can reach Tel Aviv, and could be armed with chemical warheads. In the United States, synagogues and other Jewish institutions are said to be high on the list of targets for the next Al Qaeda attack, possibly involving chemical or other nonconventional weapons. And Hamas terrorists in Gaza are reportedly trying to obtain the technology needed to unleash chemical warfare.

As we contemplate the potential horrors of a chemical weapons attack on a Jewish target in 2003, it is also worth contemplating the lessons of the first attempt by Arab leaders to unleash chemical warfare against Jews–back in 1944.

The 1944 plan was the brainchild of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini, the political leader and senior Islamic religious authority of the Palestinian Arabs.

During the 1920s and 1930s, the Mufti instigated mass Arab violence against the Jews and British authorities in British Mandatory Palestine. Later he fled to Baghdad, where, in 1941, he helped engineer a short-lived pro-Nazi coup. Then it was on to Rome, where Husseini was warmly welcomed by Mussolini, and finally Berlin, where he and his entourage spent the remainder of the war actively collaborating with the Nazis.

From Berlin the Mufti made repeated Arabic-language radio broadcasts to the Middle East, brimming with hatred of Jews and appeals to the Arab masses to support Hitler. The Islamic cleric also assisted in the development of an Arab Legion of the German Army, recruited Soviet Muslims to fight alongside the Nazis, and organized a special all-Muslim division of the SS which committed so many atrocities in Yugoslavia that 38 of its officers were later tried as war criminals. As for the annihilation of European Jewry, the Mufti and his staff met with Adolf Eichmann and were briefed by senior German officials on the genocide process, of which he heartily approved. In 1943, the Mufti’s pressure succeeded in scuttling a proposed prisoner exchange that would have saved 4,000 Jewish refugee children. The children were instead sent to Auschwitz.

Sabotage squads organized by the Mufti were parachuted behind Allied lines both in Europe and the Middle East. In 1944, one such squad parachuted into Mandatory Palestine. The details of their mission were first revealed in the 1983 book ‘The Quest for the Red Prince’ by Michael Bar-Zohar, a biographer of Ben-Gurion and Labor Party Knesset Member, and Eitan Haber, a journalist who became Yitzhak Rabin’s closest aide and speechwriter when Rabin became prime minister.

According to Bar-Zohar and Haber, the five parachutists were armed with maps of Tel Aviv, canisters of “a fine white powder,” and instructions from the Mufti to dump the German-made chemicals into the Tel Aviv water system. The British policemen who discovered the men, hiding in a cave in Jericho, sent the mysterious substance to a laboratory for analysis. “I remember how amazed we all were,” district police commander Fayiz Bey Idrissi later recalled. “The laboratory report stated that each container held enough poison to kill 25,000 people, and there were at least ten containers.”

The Mufti’s attempt to unleash mass destruction through chemical warfare took place long before there were any conflicts over borders, territories, settlements, or refugees. The State of Israel did not yet even exist. The mere prospect that a Jewish state might be created in some small part of Mandatory Palestine sufficed to inspire attempted genocide.

Sadly, there are no signs that the Palestinian Arab community has come to grips with this black chapter in its history. Yasir Arafat calls the Mufti “our hero.” Prof. Adnan Musallam of Bethlehem University skeptically characterizes the Mufti’s activity as “so-called Palestinian contacts with Germany during World War II.” Arab journalists from eastern Jerusalem who toured the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum in 1995 objected to the museum’s exhibit documenting the Mufti’s alliance with Hitler.

In recent days, A group of Israeli Arabs HAS announced plans to visit Auschwitz. It remains to be seen whether the visit will include acknowledgment and repudiation of the Mufti’s role in having 4,000 Jewish children shipped to Auschwitz and his plan for the mass murder of Palestinian Jewry. Such a repudiation would constitute a welcome departure from standard Arab commentary on the Holocaust, not to mention the present danger of chemical warfare against Jews in Israel and the Diaspora.

(March 2003)

~

Letters They Wouldn’t Publish

Nazis and Sanctuary in Arab Countries
May 10, 2006

Letters to the Editor
Chronicle of Higher Education

Dear editor:

George Michael (April 21) wrote that “After [World War II], several former German military and Nazi party officials … were granted sanctuary in Arab countries, most notably Egypt.”

Other studies have found that the number of ex-Nazis sheltered by Arab regimes was much higher than “several.” Robert St. John, in his biography of Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser (The Boss, 1960, p. 153), reported that “hundreds” of ex-Nazis came “pouring in” to Egypt shortly after World War II. Prof. M. S. Arnoni (Arab Racialism, 1970, p.22) calculated that former Nazis came to Egypt “in hundreds, perhaps in thousands,” and listed several dozen of them by name, including fugitive war criminals who were given positions in the Egyptian or Syrian governments, such as Franz Rademacher, Oskar Dirlewanger, and Leopold Gleim. Investigative journalist Paul Meskil (Hitler’s Heirs: Where Are They Now?, 1961, p.165) calculated that “more than six thousand” former Nazis had reached Egypt by 1957. So many ex-Nazis fled to Arab countries that “the underground route to Arabia soon looked like rush hour on the Autobahn,” he wrote.

It is noteworthy that Dr. Johann von Leers, a former Nazi propagandist employed by the Egyptian government, wrote in 1953 of what he called “the moving humanitarian reception which hundreds, perhaps thousands of German refugees found after the war among the Moslems of the Middle East.” (Wiener Library Bulletin, XI: 1-2, 1957)

Cordially,

Rafael Medoff, Director
The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies
Melrose Park, PA

A Syrian Haven for Killers, Then and Now

 By Dr. Rafael Medoff

The U.S. air raid on Al Qaeda forces in eastern Syria this week suggests the Bush administration may have decided to forcefully confront Syria’s policy of sheltering killers–a policy that goes all the way back to the 1940s.

At the end of World War II, thousands of Nazi war criminals were granted haven in South America and Arab countries, particularly Egypt and Syria. Damascus welcomed Nazis partly out of ideological sympathy for the Hitler regime, and partly because the fugitives were useful allies in Syria’s war to prevent the creation of Israel in 1948.

During the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, there were so many Nazi fugitives in the Syrian Army, including a number of commanding officers, that when the Haganah (soon to become the Israeli Army) defeated the Arab forces in Haifa, its terms for a truce included a provision that “European Nazis will be delivered to [the British] Military [authorities].”

During the 1950s and 1960s, the names of prominent Nazis living in Syria began to surface. One was SS Captain Theodor Dannecker, who had helped Adolf Eichmann implement Hitler’s genocide policy in France, Bulgaria, and Hungary. When the legendary Israeli spy Eli Cohen took up residence in Damascus in 1962, his Syrian acquaintances introduced him to Franz Rademacher, a senior Eichmann aide who had been involved in the mass murder of Jews from Belgium, Holland, Croatia, and elsewhere. After the war, Rademacher had fled to Syria and became an official in the Syrian Secret Service.

The most notorious Nazi granted asylum in Syria was another top Eichmann aide, SS Lieutenant Alois Brunner. After being convicted in France in 1954 of responsibility for the murders of more than 100,000 Jews, Brunner disappeared. Two decades later, the famed French Nazi-hunters Serge and Beate Klarsfeld tracked down Brunner in Damascus, where he was making a comfortable living as an adviser to the Syrian intelligence services.

U.S. government policy regarding Nazi war criminals was initially somewhat ambivalent. In 1942, President Roosevelt publicly pledged that Nazi war criminals would be punished. The following year, the Allies established the United Nations War Crimes Commission, and former diplomat Herbert Pell (father of future U.S. Senator Claiborne Pell) was appointed as the U.S. representative to the commission.

But Pell soon discovered, to his dismay, that the State Department claimed the U.S. had a legal right to prosecute only those war crimes that were committed against citizens of Allied countries–excluding atrocities committed against other civilians. That would have spared many Nazi killers of Jews. This approach was consistent with the mindset among some U.S. officials, as well as the British Foreign Office, that going easy on postwar Germany could help turn Berlin into America’s ally.

Because Pell favored prosecuting all Nazi war criminals, the State Department repeatedly tried to undermine him. State even sent a staff member to shadow Pell at commission meetings and secretly report back on what he was saying behind closed doors. Pell turned the tables by going public. His January 1945 press conference embarrassed the State Department into reversing its position and agreeing that Nazi killers of Jews –from all countries– should be prosecuted.

But after the war ended, many U.S. officials regarded the prosecution of Nazi war criminals as less of a priority than building relations with postwar West Germany. As a result, many of the less-prominent war criminals were let off with minor penalties or not prosecuted at all. In addition, some U.S. government agencies considered former Nazis to be potentially useful allies in the Cold War. A number of them, including some known war criminals, were hired for U.S. military and intelligence purposes in Europe or even brought to the United States.

In the aftermath of the U.S. war against Saddam Hussein’s regime, there were media reports that some Iraqi war criminals had found shelter in Syria. More recently, evidence has emerged of Al Qaeda forces finding haven in Syria. U.S. officials have estimated that ninety percent of foreign terrorists entering Iraq are arriving via the “uncontrolled gateway” of the Iraq-Syria border.

Yet the American response to Syria’s shelter-the-killers policy, then and now, has reflected a certain ambivalence.

After World War Two, the U.S. declined to use economic or diplomatic pressure to secure Syria’s surrender of Nazi war criminals for prosecution. Improving American relations with the Arab world was considered a higher priority than bringing Alois Brunner and company to justice.

In our own time, although U.S. troops have in some isolated instances crossed into Syrian territory while chasing terrorists, there had never been a large-scale raid comparable to this week’s, nor one involving aircraft.

And while on the one hand, the Bush administration has designated Syria a sponsor of terrorism and imposed the requisite sanctions, on the other hand Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and her aides recently met with Syrian officials to seek a “thaw” in relations between Washington and Damascus.

Does this week’s U.S. air raid demonstrate a rejection of the “thaw” approach–or does it simply reflect the latest bump in an ongoing tug of war within the administration over how to deal with Syria?

As in the 1940s, when the State Department wanted to go easy on some Nazi war criminals, and the 1950s, when the U.S. avoided the issue of Syria sheltering Nazi killers, American policymakers today find themselves at the crossroads where politics, justice, and national security collide.

(Published in the Jerusalem Post on October 30, 2008)

~

Why Syria Welcomed David Duke, American Holocaust-denier and KKK Nazi. by Dr. Rafael Medoff

David Duke, perhaps America’s most notorious racist and Holocaust-denier, has finally found a country that welcomes him: Syria.
The Syrian government last week rolled out the red carpet for Duke, the former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and author of a vicious screed called ‘Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question.’
Duke addressed a rally that was broadcast on Syrian government television (he told the crowd that New York and Washington, D.C. are “occupied by the Zionists”), held a press conference alongside Members of the Syrian Parliament, and basked in the lavish praise of the Grand Mufti of Syria, the country’s top Islamic religious leader, who praised Duke’s “courage” and his “message of peace.”  A photo of a beaming Duke with two Syrian officials now headlines his web site…
~
FDR’s Five Minutes With the Saudi King
by Dr. Rafael Medoff
Sixty-five years ago this week, President Franklin Roosevelt uttered one of the most remarkable public statements ever spoken about U.S. policy in the Middle East.
 

 

 

FDR addressed Congress on March 1, 1945, to report on the Yalta conference and his other meetings abroad. Briefly referring to the Arab-Jewish conflict over Palestine, the president departed from his prepared text to offer this observation from his meeting with Ibn Saud, the kind of Saudi Arabia: “I learned more about the whole problem, the Moslem problem, the Jewish problem, by talking with Ibn Saud for five minutes than I could have learned in the exchange of two or three dozen letters.”
Roosevelt’s statement sparked a barrage of criticism from Congress and the American Jewish community. “The choice of the desert king as expert on the Jewish question is nothing short of amazing,” Colorado Senator Edwin Johnson averred. “I imagine that even Fala [the president’s dog] would be more of an expert.”
The era’s foremost Jewish leader, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, immediately requested an audience with the president, in order clarify the president’s intentions.

Wise knew all too well the problems inherent in such meetings. The first was just getting FDR’s attention. In a document I recently found at the Central Zionist Archives, World Jewish Congress co-chairman Nahum Goldmann in 1944 described to David Ben-Gurion and other leaders of the Jewish Agency in Palestine what it was like trying to have a meaningful discussion with Roosevelt: “It is impossible to educate him, because you get to see him only once every six months, for thirty minutes, ten of which are spent by him telling anecdotes, after which he expects to hear you tell him anecdotes, and then there are only ten minutes left for a serious conversation–what can one accomplish like this?”

The second problem in discussing Palestine with Roosevelt was his tendency to talk out of both sides of his mouth. When he met Wise following the “five minutes with Ibn Saud” remark in March 1945, FDR began by berating the Jewish leader about the dangers of seeking Jewish statehood: “You are a minister of religion. Do you want me to encourage five or six hundred thousand Jews to die?” Yet at the same time, he told Wise he still stood by a letter he wrote five months earlier, supporting the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. Then, shortly afterwards, FDR met with anti-Zionists Joseph Proskauer and Jacob Blaustein, leaders of the American Jewish Committee, and told them “the project of a Jewish state in Palestine was, under present conditions, impossible of accomplishment…”

Vice President Henry Wallace had it right when he wrote in his diary: “The President certainly is a waterman. He looks in one direction and rows the other with the utmost skill…”

What was really remarkable about FDR’s “five minutes” remark was its honesty. Speechwriters and p.r. handlers know the dangers of presidents making unrehearsed statements about the Middle East. But every once in a while, a president slips and says what he really thinks. FDR probably DID learn more in those five minutes than from any another source.

What Ibn Saud told him was that the Arab world would never accept a Jewish state of any size in the Holy Land. Saud also “objected violently” to proposals to create a temporary haven in Libya for Jews fleeing the Nazis. The king recommended settling all Holocaust survivors in Germany after the war. He even spurned FDR’s talk of international aid to develop Arab countries; Saud feared the benefits of such development might be “inherited by the Jews,” since Jewish immigrants to Palestine might be secretly planning to conquer the entire Mideast.

Roosevelt aide Harry Hopkins, reflecting on the “five minutes” remark years later, still found it difficult to understand. “[T]he only thing he learned, which all people well acquainted with the Palestine cause know,” Hopkins wrote, “is that the Arabs don’t want any more Jews in Palestine.” Perhaps that was it–perhaps until he heard it first hand, FDR harbored the illusion that the Arabs would agree to a Jewish state, if it occupied a small enough area or did not admit too many immigrants.

Nahum Goldmann may have been unable to educate Roosevelt in the ten minutes he said were allotted for Jewish leaders’ conversations with the president, but the Saudi king managed to educate FDR in five–by being brutally honest.

(March 2010)

 ~

AND FINALLY ONE LAST RELATED SUBJECT: ISLAMISTS IN SUDANS, GENOCIDE, DARFUR, AND THE LEFTIST DICTATOR CHAVEZ OF VENEZUELA. (AND PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LESS THAN HALF-HEARTED EFFORTS TO DEAL WITH ANY OF IT. THE TYPICAL LEFTIST RESPONCE OF LOOKING THE OTHER WAY!)

~

On Anniversary of Nuremberg Trial, a Perpetrator of Genocide is Still Freeby Dr. Rafael Medoff

Sixty four years ago this week, in Nuremberg, the United States and its allies put the perpetrators of genocide and world war on trial. Sadly, the U.S. today is permitting the world’s most prominent perpetrator of genocide to walk free.

For years, the Sudanese government has sponsored Arab militias, known as Janjaweed, that have been slaughtering the non-Arab tribes of Sudan’s Darfur region. Hundreds of thousands have been massacred. Thousands of villages have been burned down, leaving more than one million civilians homeless. There have been mass rapes and other atrocities.

Earlier this year, Sudanese president Omar Hassan al-Bashir was indicted by the International Criminal Court for “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” for “intentionally directing attacks against an important part of the civilian population of Darfur, Sudan, murdering, exterminating, raping, torturing, and forcibly transferring large numbers of civilians, and pillaging their property.”

Bashir, in response, has desperately sought countries that would permit him to visit without being arrested. And he has found some. In March, he visited Eritrea, Egypt, Libya, and Qatar, where he took part in the Doha Arab Summit. The following month, he was welcomed in Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia. In June, it was Zimbabwe, and in July he visited Egypt a second time.

There was a brief bump in the road this summer, however, when Uganda announced that Bashir might be arrested if he attempted to participate in the “Smart Partnership” conference in Kampala. It was the first attempt to isolate Bashir and treat him like the pariah he is. And it worked: Bashir decided to stay home.

In September, Bashir was invited by Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez to take part in a summit in Caracas. There was more than a little irony that Chavez recently denounced Israel’s “genocidal government” and then, in almost the same breath, started rolling out the red carpet for a real perpetrator of genocide.

Turkey invited Bashir to a conference in November. Like Chavez, the Turkish government promised it would not arrest him. Turkish prime minister Recep Erdogan, apparently thinking that nobody remembers what the Turks did to the Armenians, was quoted as saying of Bashir, “No Muslim could perpetrate a genocide.”

But the Butcher of Darfur did not travel to either Venezuela or Turkey. Evidently he feared that traveling to South America, or so close to Europe, might tempt the U.S. or others to try to arrest him.

Unfortunately Bashir’s fears were probably not well-founded. Neither the United States nor any European nation has given any serious indication of a willingness to arrest him.

It’s true that during last year’s presidential campaign, Barack Obama spoke strongly of the need for action on Darfur. But President Obama’s actual record in that regard is another story.

During the campaign, candidate Obama criticized the Bush administration for its halfhearted response to Darfur. Obama urged stronger steps, “real pressure” such as tougher sanctions and the imposition of a No Fly Zone over the region. “There must be real pressure placed on the Sudanese government” to stop the Darfur genocide, Obama asserted. “We know from past experience that it will take a great deal to get them to do to the right thing.”

If such actions had been taken by the Obama administration and failed to produce the desired results, it would be reasonable for U.S. policymakers to seek an alternative approach. But President Obama never tried ramping up the pressure. Nor has the administration taken action to bring about the arrest of Bashir during his many travels.

Instead of the “real pressure” that he once demanded, President Obama last month announced a new Sudan policy based on the concept that, as the White House put it, “we must engage with those with whom we disagree.”

Engaging with regimes with whom the United States disagrees makes sense. But genocide is not a “disagreement.

Legal scholar and human rights activist Raphael Lemkin coined the term “genocide” in 1944, and campaigned for international action against it, precisely because genocide is not comparable to ordinary disagreements between nations or ordinary warfare between armies. A systematic attempt to “destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical [sic], racial or religious group” is a uniquely evil crime. It merits a uniquely forceful response from the United States and the international community.

A no-fly zone, stronger international sanctions, and pressure on Sudan’s allies –such as Russia, China, and the Arab League– would be important first steps. But the most effective way to help end the Darfur genocide and deter future would-be perpetrators of genocide would be to capture the world’s most prominent perpetrator of genocide and bring him to a Nuremberg tribunal of his own.

(November 2009)

~

America’s Chance to Capture Darfur KillerBy: Dr. Rafael Medoff

The same week that Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez denounced Israel as “genocidal,” he invited a genuine perpetrator of genocide, the president of Sudan, to attend a summit in Caracas.

Hypocritical? Outrageous? Offensive?

All of the above. But Chavez also may have inadvertently created an opportunity for the United States or its allies to take a major step towards ending the Darfur genocide.

Chavez announced last week that Israel’s “genocidal government” is “a murderous lackey at the service of imperialism.” In almost the same breath, he invited Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir to Caracas later this month, to take part in the third annual Africa-South America Summit.

Evidently Chavez was not fazed by the fact that earlier this year, the International Criminal Court issued a warrant for the arrest of Bashir for his role in the Darfur genocide. Bashir’s government sponsors the Arab militias, or janjaweed, that have brutally slaughtered hundreds of thousands of non-Arab Darfurians in recent years.

The indictment charges Bashir for “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” for “intentionally directing attacks against an important part of the civilian population of Darfur, Sudan, murdering, exterminating, raping, torturing, and forcibly transferring large numbers of civilians, and pillaging their property.”

Bashir, craving international leg itimacy, has desperately sought countries that would permit him to visit without being arrested. And he has found some. In March, he visited Eritrea, Egypt, Libya, and Qatar, where he took part in the Doha Arab Summit. The following month, he was welcomed in Saudi Arabia and Ethiopia. In June, it was Zimbabwe, and in July he visited Egypt a second time.

There was a brief bump in the road this summer, however, when Uganda announced that Bashir might be arrested if he attempted to participate in the “Smart Partnership” conference in Kampala. It was the first attempt to isolate Bashir and treat him like the pariah he is. And it worked: Bashir decided to stay home.

Venezuela is a party to the International Criminal Court and is obligated to implement the arrest warrant for Bashir.

But don’t count on that happening any time soon. Chavez has been actively pursuing warmer relations with the genocidal regime in Sudan. In 2005, Venezuela established diplomatic relation s with Sudan. Last year, a Venezuelan embassy was opened in Khartoum, and just last month Bashir appointed his first ambassador to Caracas.

So perhaps it is no surprise that Chavez invited Bashir to the upcoming summit in the Venezuelan capitol. And surely Bashir must be tempted to accept the invitiation. After all, it would be his first visit to the Western Hemisphere since the ICC warrant was issued. That would be a significant step in Bashir’s campaign to escape international isolation.

The problem for Bashir is that a flight from Sudan to Venezuela would have to stop somewhere for refueling. Perhaps twice.

That would create one, maybe two, opportunities to capture Bashir. America’s military forces have demonstrated their ability to apprehend wanted figures in unusual situations. One only need recall the U.S. capture of the hijackers of the Achille Lauro in 1985 by forcing down the Egyptian plane that was carrying them, or the pursuit and arrest of Manuel Noriega by U.S. forces in Panama in 1990. America’s allies are also capable of undertaking such operations.

Sixty-five years ago this week, U.S. bombers flew within a few miles of the Auschwitz death camp as they struck German oil factories nearby. They were never given the order to hit the gas chambers, the crematoria, or the railway lines leading to them. The Roosevelt administration was not willing to expend even the most minimal resources for such a non-military goal.

Today, in the face of the ongoing killings in Darfur, the leaders of the Free World face a similar question as they consider whether to employ a small amount of military force in order to take down the world’s primary perpetrator of genocide.

(September 2009)

~

And, there were 1930’s Fascist “peace” posters that don’t even need translation! Readers here may or may not be aware that Britain too had a vigorous Fascist movement during the Hitler era, hence the period of appeasement prior to Churchill finally taking action against the evils of the Nazis. The leader of the British Union of Fascists — Sir Oswald Mosley — was anything but a nonentity. The King even came to his wedding! And Mosley originally left the British Labour party (in 1930) because it was not socialist enough! Mosley, a leading Fabian (who founded the extremist Eugenics movement along with other notable Fabians such as Bernard Shaw and HG Wells) and who founded the Blackshirts, himself later said in 1968: “I am not, and never have been, a man of the right. My position was on the Left and is now in the centre of politics”
Mosley’s leadership style was that of Mussolini’s, his hatred of Jews was that of Hitler’s, and as for the movement, well they even adopted as their marching song, a translation of the Nazi anthem.

As for Mosley’s posters from the 1930s what’s most notable is the irony of the familiar “peace” motif that Leftists always use. 
(The first picture below is a bus poster advertising the “Earl’s Court Peace Rally”)
Bus posters advertising the Earls Court Peace Rally. 

Fascism : 100 Questions Asked and Answered
Full reprint of the 1936 B.U.F. publication in which Oswald Mosley answers 100 questions on British Fascism.
 
Microsoft Reader version – 100 Questions(323Kb)

Adobe Acrobat version – 100 Questions(796Kb)
 
 
Tomorrow We Live - British Union PolicyTomorrow We Live – British Union Policy
Full reprint of the 1938 book outlining British Union policy.
Contents include : Foreword by Oswald Mosley, System Of Government – What Is Wrong, British Union System Of Government, Economic System – What Is Wrong ?, British Union Economic System, The People’s State – A Classless System, The Jewish Question, British Foreign Policy, British Union.
 

 

 

Microsoft Reader version – Tomorrow We Live (572Kb)

Adobe Acrobat version – Tomorrow We Live(636Kb)

The Coming Corporate State - by A. Raven ThomsonThe Coming Corporate State – by A. Raven Thomson

In his most important book ‘The Coming Corporate State’ (1938), Raven Thomson sets out in clear and precise terms the economic infrastructure that would be put in place once power was given by the British people to British Union. Unlike National Socialist Germany which remained essentially capitalist, the British Socialism of British Union would transfer ownership of all industrial and commercial organisations above a certain size to one of eighteen Corporations covering every business activity.

Free Download – The Coming Corporate State (678Kb)

Hitler had the Brownshirts, Mosley’s was the Blackshirts, and the symbol’s only difference with the SS – 1 bolt instead of 2.

The definitive study of the uniforms, flags and insignia of Oswald Mosley’s pre-war British Union of Fascists and post war Union Movement. Covering the years 1932-1966, it takes an in-depth look at such things as the famous Blackshirt uniform; the movement’s highly developed command structure and unique rank insignia. The book also investigates less well known aspects of the BUF including the Greyshirt Youth and Cadet Movements; and the Fascist Union Of British Workers, all of whom had their own distinctive uniforms. Many years research and the assistance of leading collectors in the field have allowed the author to give a complete coverage of this fascinating subject for the first time – making it an essential handbook for both historians, collectors and patriots interested in our forbidden past. 136 pages and 200 photos/illustrations many in colour of the history they want you to forget. Hail Mosley, the truth will prevail, a must for the true! £30 including postage, cheque/postal orders to Brokingday to Brokingday, 27 Old Gloucester Street, London, WC1N 3XX.

I have encountered things in this country, which I did not dream existed in Britain. One of them is the power of organised Jewry, which is today mobilised against Fascism. They have thrown down their challenge for Fascism, and I am not in the habit of ignoring challenges. Now they seek to howl over the length and breadth of the land that we are bent on racial and religious persecution. That change is utterly untrue. Today we do not attack the Jews on racial grounds, we take up the challenge that they have thrown down because they fight against Fascism and against Britain. They have declared in their great folly to challenge the conquering force of the modern age. Tonight we take up that challenge; they will it, let them have it! Oswald Mosely, 1934.

from Blood & Honor issue #31

 ~

AND DID YOU REALIZE:

 Nazis in Chicago in 1931http://www.bytwerk.com/gpa/naziimages.htm

There were Nazis in the United States even before Hitler took power. This is the cover from the Nazi illustrated weekly of 21 November 1931 showing the Chicago band of Nazis. Their flag is their own design, not at all similar to what the Nazis were using in Germany. The interior of the magazine has other photographs of American Nazis in Chicago, Detroit, and New York.

Marion Anderson

Eleanor Roosevelt was a favorite target of Nazi propaganda. In this article, taken from the party’s illustrated weekly, she is assailed for her support of Marion Anderson. Promoting a Negro singer, the article claims, insults the healthy racial attitudes of the American public.

Source: Illustrierter Beobachter, #25/1939.
~

 

  Letters They Wouldn’t Publish

Rationalizing Stalin’s Pact with Hitler
September 20, 2004
 
Letters to the Editor
New York Jewish Week
Dear editor:
 
 

 

In your September 3 “In Profile,” veteran political activist Evelyn Chasan recalled her participation in May Day rallies in the 1930s and involvement in “anti-fascist Socialist circles.”  She mentioned a party “organized by fellow progressives in 1938 or 1939, when the world seemed at once a more desperate and more hopeful place.  Hitler was not yet a widely known name…”
Hitler absorbed Austria in March 1938.  The Munich agreement, and the beginning of the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, was signed in September 1938. The massive nationwide Kristallnacht pogrom devastated Germany’s Jews in November 1938 (and earlier pogroms, such as those in Berlin in 1935, had been prominently reported in the American media as well).  It can hardly be said that Hitler’s name or his sponsorship of antisemitic violence were “not widely known.” 
What may be said is that a certain segment of the American left was so focused on the alleged evils of capitalism in the late 1930s that it had trouble recognizing the unique evil of Hitler.  Following the 1939 agreement between the Soviet Union and Germany, which paved the way for Germany’s invasion of Poland, some American radicals rationalized Moscow’s pact with Hitler and urged the U.S. to stay out of the war between Germany and England, which Mary McCarthy and other Partisan Review intellectuals called “a useless imperialist war.”  Irving Howe, in World of Our Fathers, recalls how the New York Communist newspaper “Freiheit” went so far as to justify Hitler’s invasion of Poland as “good for the Jews” on the grounds that while two million Polish Jews were now under Hitler’s rule,the remaining one million had been “saved” by the Soviet Union.
Sincerely,
Dr. Rafael Medoff, Director
The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies
Melrose Park, PA

~

 NAZI SOCIALIST PROPAGANDA POSTERS OF THE 1930’S

Note the similarity to modern Leftist themes 

by John Ray
The first poster below is about Nazi “compassion”. It advertises the Nazi charity, the NSV. The text translates: “Health, child protection, fighting poverty, aiding travellers, people’s community, helping mothers: These are the tasks of the National Socialist People’s Charity: Join up” 

The poster below, as well as many others, shows how big the Nazis were on collective action rather than individuality. It translates as: “National Socialism — the organized will of the nation”. It depicts storm troopers and was a favourite Nazi poster 

 

Another one that must be the most amusing peace poster of all time, was issued in the very year the war began. It promoted the 1939 Nuremberg Rally and the slogan translates as the “National Party Rally of Peace”. But the rally (or “assembly”) was cancelled when World War II began. The message of the imagery seems to be: “Peace — or else!”. We all know how vicious and aggressive peaceniks can be but this image expressed that with unusual clarity. 

Most interesting were posters showing not a Soviet hammer and sickle (standing for worker and peasant) but just a hammer. And the text tells us why. One translates idiomatically as: “Workers with the mind and with the hands, choose the frontline soldier: HITLER!” How modern! Leftists today don’t give a damn about country people either. They claim to be an alliance between the intellectuals and the workers. The more things change …. 

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/posters/daf.jpg

 

and another http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/posters/front1.jpg

Many Nazi propaganda posters (such as “Flaggenspruch” or “flag motto”) were often publicly displayed during World War 2. The basic messages were that help for the poor is not charity but something which the poor have a right to — which is of course a common Leftist claim to this day. 

The heading (“Opferwilligkeit”) translates as: “Willingness for self-sacrifice” and the rest translates as: “Social works deserve no gratitude because they are not graciousness but the restoration of rights”. The source of the quotation is from Mein Kampf (around page 23 or 24 in most editions).

While the posters from the 1930s mentioned above are very vivid in what they tell us, it is perhaps even more impressive to see such posters “in action”, as it were. There were two such posters that illustrated that. 

One poster says something that you won’t believe unless you are aware of how readily all Leftists preach one thing and do another. It reads “Mit Hitler gegen den Ruestungswahnsinn der Welt”. 

And what does that mean? It means “With Hitler against the armaments madness of the world”. (“Ruestung” could more precisely be translated as “military preparations” or “arms buildup” but “armaments” is a bit more idiomatic in English.) So, as we have already seen, the preaching of “peace” by the bloodthirsty Soviet regime of the cold war period had its parallel with the Nazis too.

And perhaps most explicitly Leftist of all was an election banner that also appeared in conjuction with the above mentioned.
It reads: “Mit Adolf Hitler “Ja” fuer Gleichberechtigung und Frieden” — which translates as “With Adolf Hitler “Yes” for equal rights and peace” — the same old standby slogans that the Left trot out to this day, of course.

And the Dutch Nazis were very much in cahoots with the German occupation authorities. So have a look at one of their widely distributed posters: 

In translation, it reads: “With Germany AGAINST capitalism”. So Nazism was Rightist? Only in the fevered imaginations of modern Leftists.  

For a full collection see here @ http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/posters2.htm

Background: This is a collection of Nazi posters from 1933-45. Many are taken from photographs made by Dr. Robert D. Brooks at the German Federal Archives. A collection of pre-1933 posters is also available.

I have gathered the remainder from a wide range of sources. By far the most extensive collection of posters available is that of the German Federal Archives. They have over a thousand on-line. The University of Minnesota library also has a large collection, and has given me permission to use some of its posters. Some additional posters are available from the George C. Marshall Foundation.

This page is part of a much larger site on German propaganda during the Nazi and East German eras.
~

 

Nazi Propaganda Examples of the theory and practice of propaganda
 Pre-1933 Material Essays by Goebbels, posters and other material
 1933-1945 Material Propaganda of the Third Reich
Speeches by Hitler, Goebbels, Ley, Göring, and Streicher.
Attacks on the Jews from various sources.
Posters, cartoons and photographs
The war from the Nazi perspective
A variety of Nazi propaganda
What Nazi propagandists were reading
Links to other sites relevant to Nazi propaganda
East German Propaganda Marxist propaganda: 1949-1989
Speeches on the Berlin Wall and more
A variety of GDR propaganda
Wall propaganda material and posters
What GDR propagandists were reading
Links to other East German propaganda sites
 [T]he program of the new movement was summed up in a few guiding principles, twenty-five in all. They were devised to give, primarily to the man of the people, a rough picture of the movement’s aims. They are in a sense a political creed, which on the one hand recruits for the movement and on the other is suited to unite and weld together by a commonly recognized obligation those who have been recruited.
Hitler was intent on having a community of mutual interest that desired mutual success instead of one that was divided over the control of money or differing values.
THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-INTEREST –
THAT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE PROGRAM. BREAKING OF THE THRALDOM OF INTEREST – THAT IS THE KERNEL OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.
In these straightforward statements of intent, Hitler translated his ideology into a plan of action which would prove its popularity with the German people throughout the coming years. For many, the abruptness of its departure from the tradition of politics as practiced in the western world was as much of a shock as its liberal nature and foresight of the emerging problems of western democracy.
 
 
The Programme of the German Workers’ Party is designed to be of limited duration. The leaders have no intention, once the aims announced in it have been achieved, of establishing fresh ones, merely in order to increase, artificially, the discontent of the masses and so ensure the continued existence of the Party.1. We demand the union of all Germany in a Greater Germany on the basis of the right of national self-determination.

2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in its dealings with other nations, and the revocation of the peace treaties of Versailles and Saint-Germain.

3. We demand land and territory (colonies) to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.

4. Only members of the nation may be citizens of the State. Only those of German blood, whatever be their creed, may be members of the nation. Accordingly, no Jew may be a member of the nation.

5. Non-citizens may live in Germany only as guests and must be subject to laws for aliens.

6. The right to vote on the State’s government and legislation shall be enjoyed by the citizens of the State alone. We demand therefore that all official appointments, of whatever kind, whether in the Reich, in the states or in the smaller localities, shall be held by none but citizens.

We oppose the corrupting parliamentary custom of filling posts merely in accordance with party considerations, and without reference to character or abilities.

7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. If it should prove impossible to feed the entire population, foreign nationals (non-citizens) must be deported from the Reich.

8. All non-German immigration must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after 2 August 1914 shall be required to leave the Reich forthwith.

9. All citizens shall have equal rights and duties.

10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good. 

We demand therefore:
11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work.
 
The breaking of the slavery of interest
12. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.
16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municiple orders.
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. *
18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest. Common criminals, usurers, profiteers, etc., must be punished with death, whatever their creed or race.

19. We demand that Roman Law, which serves a materialistic world order, be replaced by a German common law.

20. The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working German the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation of the State (through the study of civic affairs). We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.

 

21. The State must ensure that the nation’s health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.

22. We demand the abolition of the mercenary army and the foundation of a people’s army.

23. We demand legal warfare on deliberate political mendacity and its dissemination in the press. To facilitate the creation of a German national press we demand:

(a) that all editors of, and contributors to newspapers appearing in the German language must be members of the nation;
(b) that no non-German newspapers may appear without the express permission of the State. They must not be printed in the German language;
(c) that non-Germans shall be prohibited by law from participating financially in or influencing German newspapers, and that the penalty for contravening such a law shall be the suppression of any such newspaper, and the immediate deportation of the non-Germans involved.

The publishing of papers which are not conducive to the national welfare must be forbidden. We demand the legal prosecution of all those tendencies in art and literature which corrupt our national life, and the suppression of cultural events which violate this demand.

24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, provided they do not threaten its existence not offend the moral feelings of the German race.

The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.

25. To put the whole of this programme into effect, we demand the creation of a strong central state power for the Reich; the unconditional authority of the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and its organizations; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by the Reich in the various German states.

The leaders of the Party promise to work ruthlessly — if need be to sacrifice their very lives — to translate this programme into action.

Source: Programme of the NSDAP

 * * *

%d bloggers like this: